This is probably one of the few sensible things said in this thread so far. The middling liberal approach taken by many in this thread looks at issues of ‘deplatforming’ and so on as though politics and power only ever intervene after the fact, as though the ground of speech were a priori neutral and only then ‘interfered’ with from the outside, per accidens. But this is naïvety at best, utter stupidity at worst - anyone who isn’t a complete idiot knows that only some are ever given a platform to begin with - are ‘platformed’. The rest - the majority - simply shout into the void.
It is simply political infantilism to believe that everyone has a platform - is born with one, as it were - and that harm only comes from 'taking it away’. As if some stupid toy. Platforms are rare, hard-fought over, and mercilessly defended and attacked. Those who complain about ‘deplatforming’ usually have nothing to say about platforming to begin with, because they are so utterly insensible to the play of power everywhere at work long before some wanker has their stupid ‘say’ on a lectern somewhere. Their defence of ‘free speech’ is nothing but a defence of the arrangement of power just as it is - the status quo, all the while denying that power has any role to play expect on the side of those who argue for ‘deplatforming’. It’s hypocrisy unnamed. — StreetlightX
Only "their" defence of free speech? I guess you mean either the defence of free speech for the views you don't like; or, which for you comes to the same thing, the defence of free speech for all views. I guess you mean that, say, my
defence of free speech is also a "defence of the arrangement of power just as it is", only maybe I don't know it.
But there is disagreement over what that arrangement of power is, and disagreement over what is a defence of the status quo and what is not. For example, I'm a quasi- or ex- or crypto-leftist, and I believe that neoliberal capitalism and the present cultural orthodoxy that passes for leftism are more than merely compatible: they are two sides of the same coin. And that's despite the existence of bogeymen like the Kochs. The point is not to argue here for that thesis, but to try and show that your moral and intellectual high ground isn't necessarily so high, i.e., that there's a debate to be had, one that you assume has been had already.
Liberal shills have nothing to say about the structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying. They'll bark your ear off about 'deplatforming' and remain deafeningly, fatally silent about the far more significant, far more pervasive issue of platforming. Their politics is reactive, as reactive as any they blab about with their reams of words. — StreetlightX
Is anyone who defends free speech without compromise, or who complains about deplatforming, a "liberal shill"? What about the people who do so while also
having things to say about the "structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying"?
Like most of your stuff about actually existing politics, your post is impatient, polemical, authoritarian, and--in common with most philosophers when they talk about the real world--disappointingly second-hand and mainstream-ideological. But if you're taking sides in a battle, on behalf of a party, then I guess that's appropriate. I mean, even accepting
your stuff about power, from that point if you don't accept that there is a debate to be had about who holds the power in the first place
, then it just comes down to who can shout the loudest, who can use the power of the state for their own ends (and who can lament the deplorableness of the common people in the class war of the Left against the working class).
Your post is really just an argument in favour of ad hominem
. Do not look to the argument, you say, look to the person--and their power, identity, etc. As such it is close to being fallacious if interpreted as rational, though perhaps useful or understandable if interpreted as bloodthirsty polemic or Leninist revolutionary propaganda. It doesn't come close to being thoughtful or philosophical.